1. Field
This application refers to a transit vehicle, more particularly to a ferry-like vehicle capable of transporting a plurality of roadway vehicles with their passengers and cargo.
2. Background
Virtually all sizeable cities in the world face enormously expensive challenges in managing automobile traffic. Cities have invested many billions of dollars in efforts to manage automobile traffic, reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. These investments have funded transit systems such as bus, light rail and commuter rail, subway, trolleys, vanpools and carpool lanes. Despite massive investments, traffic congestion and air pollution continue to grow.                The Texas Transportation Institute, widely accepted as an authority on U.S. traffic data and trends, reports in their 2009 Urban Mobility Report that traffic congestion has increased in every category of city (very large, large, medium and small) as measured by “Delay Hours” between 1982 and 2007. Very large cities have increased from 21 hours of delay per driver per year to 51 hours per driver per year, an increase of 143 percent. For large cities the increase is 218 percent, for medium cities the increase is 188 percent and for small cities the increase is 217 percent.        The CIA World Factbook of 2006 reports that the U.S. and world populations are expected to continue growing into the foreseeable future. Growth is slowing from a high of 2.2 percent in the 1960's to 1.1 percent today. The rate of growth is expected to decline further but absolute numbers of people are forecast to increase until at least mid-century when the world population reaches approximately 9.2 billion.        
The current U.S. nationwide adoption rate for public transportation is 4.9 percent (2008 ACS survey by the US Census Bureau). In numerical terms, 6.8 million out of 136 million commuters utilize public transportation. Public transit use is heavily skewed toward 1.) individuals without automobiles, and 2.) commuters in cities with robust subway systems, mostly along the east coast. Many sprawling western cities have public transit adoption rates of less than two percent.
At the same time, a recent Pew survey shows that fewer Americans like to drive. Many people, 31 percent, called driving a “chore”. The reason they felt this way is “the growing hassle of traffic congestion” (23 percent), “other drivers” (14 percent) and “the grind of commuting to work” (10 percent). Other factors such as “waste of time” (5 percent), “tiring” (4 percent) and “stressful” (3 percent) add up to a large body of people who would rather not drive.
The two primary reasons that motivate commuters to choose automobiles over mass transportation are: 1.) mobility—automobiles provide commuters a high degree of mobility where public transportation systems inhibit mobility, especially in large, sprawling cities, and 2.) time—end-to-end commutes on public transportation systems generally require more time because the journey includes a.) walking, biking or driving from the start location to the transit system embarkation point, b.) the journey on the transit system that might involve several stops, connections and/or modal changes, and c.) walking or biking to the end location. Current public transportation systems do not meet the mobility requirement or time efficiency demanded by commuters.
The costs associated with traffic congestion are staggering. From the perspective of commuters there are statistical data indicating significant costs in wasted time, wasted fuel, lost productivity and increased stress and anxiety. From the perspective of city, county, state and federal governments there are well documented costs of managing and maintaining existing roadways and transit systems, plus construction of new roadways and transit systems. These circumstances create significant demand for traffic abatement projects that reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and the hefty ongoing socioeconomic costs associated with crowded roadways.
Prior art is extensive and varied as it pertains to public transit systems. Some transit system designs are all-encompassing mobility systems in which private automobiles have no role. Other designs require various types of guide ways through which various specialized vehicles travel. Some designs attempt to transport modified automobiles and their passengers via overhead rails while others require highly specialized vehicles. A few systems transport unmodified roadway vehicles and their passengers but are very clearly designed for long distance rather than intra-city commuter travel. Prior art includes:                1. Closed loop systems represented by U.S. Pat. No. 3,403,634 to Crowder, U.S. Pat. No. 3,903,807 to Lee, U.S. Pat. No. 4,841,871 to Leibowitz, U.S. Pat. No. 5,016,542 to Mitchell, U.S. Pat. No. 5,797,330 to Li, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,810,817 to James. These systems share the objective of replacing automobiles with an all-encompassing urban transportation system. To utilize these systems commuters must leave their car behind and thereby forfeit mobility. Over the decades, commuters have shown consistently that they need and/or desire access to their automobiles at all times. Evidence of this is clear in the weak adoption rate of current transit systems. Closed loop systems suffer the burden of changing the behavior of urban commuters who cannot or will not abandon their automobiles during their daily commute.        2. Guideway systems represented by U.S. Pat. No. 5,063,857 to Kissel, Jr., U.S. Pat. No. 5,590,604 to Lund, U.S. Pat. No. 5,619,930 to Alimanestiano, U.S. Pat. No. 6,039,135 to Henderson, U.S. Pat. No. 6,182,577 to Billings, U.S. Pat. No. 6,202,566 to Hutchinson, U.S. Pat. No. 6,237,500 to Lund, U.S. Pat. No. 6,357,358 to Henderson, U.S. Pat. No. 6,353,857 to Kauffman, U.S. Pat. No. 6,668,729 to Richards, U.S. Pat. No. 6,721,985 to McCrary, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,923,124 to Roane. Widely varied, these systems utilize a variety of elaborate guide way designs to transport people and cargo (which can include automobiles) between points in the system. Some of the systems require highly specialized automobiles while others transport standard automobiles on pallet-like mechanisms. Disadvantages of these systems include: 1.) significant complexity, 2.) the requirement that commuters drive highly specialized automobiles designed specifically for the transit system (where applicable), and 3.) capacity is constrained in that the systems cannot accommodate hundreds of thousands of automobiles in a short period of rush hour traffic.        3. Monorail systems represented by U.S. Pat. No. 3,345,951 to Rethorst, U.S. Pat. No. 5,592,883 to Andress, III, and the TransDrive Transportation System. Similar to a monorail in principle, these systems transport modified automobiles between terminals utilizing a network of overhead rails. Automobiles must be fitted with external hardware mechanisms to which the monorail system attaches during transport. Disadvantages of these systems include: 1.) significant complexity, 2.) automobiles are not engineered in a manner that provides enough structural support to suspend the automobile by the roof, 3.) widely available evidence makes clear that drivers are highly selective about the design, features and performance of their automobiles and are unlikely to accept a costly and unsightly modification, and 4.) the capacity of these transit systems is limited by the speed at which automobiles can travel single-file while hanging from a monorail.        4. Automobile carriers represented by U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/911,556 to Suematsu (of Japan), U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/660,133 to Rigo (of Canada), U.S. Pat. No. 3,149,583 to Morrill and Republique Francaise brevet d′invention 1.274.220 to de Colnet. These systems transport both the passenger and automobile, albeit in separate transit vehicles. These systems share the disadvantage of a slow process for loading and unloading as commuters leave their automobile in a designated area and find their way to the passenger car while an employee of the transit system retrieves their car and loads it into the automobile carrier. Unloading of the vehicles and delivery to the passenger involves the same inherent delays. This category of transit system is not suited for the rapid pace of urban rush hour traffic involving hundreds of thousands of automobiles.        5. Automobile carriers with passengers in the same transit vehicle represented by U.S. Pat. No. 2,211,469 to King, U.S. Pat. No. 3,503,340 to Warren, U.S. Pat. No. 3,584,584 to Milenkovic, U.S. Pat. No. 3,892,188 to Warren, U.S. Pat. No. 4,397,496 to Drygas, and U.S. Pat. No. 7,275,901 to Carroll. These systems share the disadvantage of a very slow loading and unloading process as commuters leave their automobile in a designated area and find their way to the passenger cabin while an employee of the transit system retrieves their car and loads it into the automobile carrier portion of the transit vehicle. Unloading of the automobiles and delivery to the passenger involves the same inherent delays. This category of transit system is not suited for the rapid pace of urban rush hour traffic involving hundreds of thousands of automobiles.        6. U.S. Pat. No. 3,285,194 to Clejan. The Clejan transit system has several disadvantages which include: 1.) passengers exit their automobile and go to a lounge area elsewhere in the transit vehicle, 2.) automobile tires must be aligned with wheel guides mounted on the floor of the transit vehicle in order to precisely position the automobile in the transit vehicle, 3.) parking channels are very narrow, 4.) passengers may enter and exit their automobile through the driver side only, 5.) security of passengers and their property is compromised by the interconnected parking bays, 6.) adjacent automobiles are parked facing opposite directions, passenger side to passenger side, so that every other automobile is parked facing one direction while alternate automobiles face the other direction, a dangerous circumstance that requires crossing of oncoming traffic during entry and exit, and 7.) wide rollup bay doors operate slowly. The Clejan transit system is designed for intercity travel as evidenced by statements such as “it is contemplated that the system will serve two or more metropolitan areas, and that the two toll plazas mentioned will be arranged outside of the two respectively adjacent metropolitan areas and respectively connected thereto by highways”. The Clejan transit system is not suited for the rapid pace of urban rush hour traffic involving hundreds of thousands of automobiles.        7. U.S. Pat. No. 3,357,712 to Milenkovic. The Milenkovic transit system has several disadvantages which include: 1.) passengers exit their automobile and go to the lounge area elsewhere in the transit vehicle, 2.) automobile tires must be aligned with wheel guides mounted on the floor of the transit vehicle in order to precisely position the automobile in the transit vehicle, 3.) narrow parking channels allow passengers entry/exit via one side of the vehicle only, 4.) security of passengers and their property is compromised by the interconnected parking bays, and 5.) standard gauge railroad tracks almost certainly will not provide adequate stability for a transit vehicle of the described height and width traveling at speeds of 200 MPH. The Milenkovic transit system is designed for intercity travel, as opposed to the present application which serves primarily urban commuter travel, as evidenced by its reference to the Clejan system (above, U.S. Pat. No. 3,285,194) with statements such as “As illustrated therein, the railway train serves two or more metropolitan areas, and two toll plazas will be arranged outside of the two respectively adjacent metropolitan areas and respectively connected thereto by highways”. The Milenkovic transit system is not suited for the rapid pace of urban rush hour traffic involving hundreds of thousands of automobiles.        8. U.S. Pat. No. 3,785,514 to Forsyth et al., U.S. Pat. No. 3,896,946 to Forsyth et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 3,933,258 to Forsyth et al. The Forsyth transit systems are compatible only with small, highly specialized automobiles. Widely available evidence makes clear that drivers are highly selective about the design, features and performance of their automobiles and are unlikely to abandon their preferences. To utilize a transit system in this category while retaining their preferred automobile, a commuter must purchase an additional, highly specialized automobile. The new automobile represents significant expenses for purchase, maintenance, licensing and insurance, plus additional space in the garage or driveway. Where the family includes two commuters, a common circumstance, the financial burden is doubled. For these reasons the Forsyth transit systems are unlikely to meet with wide acceptance.        9. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/251,199 to Farooq. The Farooq transit system has several disadvantages: 1.) time delay as each transit vehicle is separated and spaced apart from other transit vehicles for loading and unloading, 2.) time delay as highly specialized tractor-trailer rigs are driven into place at either end of each transit vehicle to precisely position the loading/unloading ramps, 3.) time delay as automobiles carefully negotiate the tightly curving, sloping ramps to load and unload in single-file, 4.) assistance may be required by transit system staff to ensure that automobiles are parked closely enough together to permit a full complement of automobiles on each loading deck, and 5.) security of passengers and their property is compromised by the interconnected parking bays. Additionally, Farooq vaguely mentions and illustrates an embodiment of his transit system in which automobiles are transported transversely to the longitudinal direction of the transit vehicle but provides too little information to consider that concept a well formed embodiment. For example, no mention is made of how vehicles enter or exit the boxcars or whether passengers remain inside the vehicles. Farooq describes that his system can transport 200 commuter vehicles per train and that, with a 15-minute turnaround time, four trains can run per hour transporting a total of 800 commuter vehicles per hour. During a four-hour morning rush period (and same during the evening rush) his system can move a total of 3,200 commuter vehicles. This capacity is clearly inadequate for accommodating the rapid pace of urban rush hour traffic involving hundreds of thousands of automobiles.        